That’s what a friend of mine heard from his own group of male friends during a weekend away. He thought they were joking at first, then realized they were dead serious.
Their point was that women represent a financial risk for their employers because they will inevitably go on leave to have children at some point, and from a purely economical point of view, it’s basic common sense to invest less in a “risky product”.
My friend was totally appalled, and so was I.
How can anyone still think like this in 2024? Where do they get these ideas from?
These are young - early 30s -, educated men, who have as much access to information as you and I, and are active members of society - i.e. not living under a rock for the past 20 years… Still, their thinking is based on a few absurd assumptions.
Here are six:
1) Paying women less than men for doing equal work is OK
Well, it’s not only not OK, it’s illegal. At least in the EU (see footnote a).
Despite that, the fact that young, educated men can casually say that salary discrimination is normal shows how much work there is still to do to enforce the law and change mindsets.
2) Women alone bear the responsibility of having and caring for children
Looks like the concept of immaculate conception is still alive and well…??
To be fair, the huge gap between maternity and paternity leave duration (b) doesn’t help to refute the belief that men are not concerned by parenthood, particularly at work.
Because it’s not yet as common to see fathers go on extended leave when they have children, it’s easy to assume that the responsibility of childcare is a purely feminine issue.
3) It makes sense to apply a permanent, irreversible penalty based on a (perceived) risk that is time-bound
What these young men are effectively saying is that it is logical to pay someone 13% less (c) over the span of 36 years (d), on the off chance that they might be away for about 5 months (e) - about 1% of it.
Even if we left for double that amount of time, what about the remaining 35 years, during which, theoretically, we are performing at a similar level as their male counterparts? Also, how come most women’s pay never recovers even well past our childbearing years?
4) All women plan to have children...
... (because that’s our sole purpose in life, right?) and go on maternity leave, so it makes sense to apply a flat penalty to half the population, regardless of their individual situation.
It's interesting to note that there are about 15% of women who never have children (f), whether by choice or not. So even if the original argument stood, what about them? I wonder what excuse these young men would find to justify paying them less.
5) Employees are robots, not human beings
Employees don’t have personal lives or changing circumstances that might require some flexibility from their employer. We’re never sick, nor are our loved ones. Our level of performance is perfectly consistent and predictable at any given time, during our entire careers… Right? Obviously not.
By these young men’s argument, should we apply a penalty to 50+ year old employees because they’re at a higher risk of suffering serious health issues (g)? Or to men because they’re twice as likely as women to suffer fatal accidents (h)?
The reality is, anyone can be affected by an event, expected or not, that might require them to take an extended leave or step back from work.
The “risk” argument to justify paying women less is ludicrous.
6) Talent is an infinite, readily-available resource… so you can treat and pay employees however you want
The competition for talent is so fierce, it is often referred to as a “war”.
Organizations have an increasing need for specialized skills, and the current economic context creates rising uncertainty for employees (i), who are less likely to switch jobs. So the talent pool from which they can hire is finite, and it will take some convincing to get talent to leave their current job.
For candidates, compensation and benefits, work-life balance and flexibility are the top three priorities they consider when evaluating a potential employer (j).
Acting as if organizations can afford not to be thoughtful about the experience and benefits they’re offering to potential hires is absurd and shows a complete lack of awareness of the reality of the labor market (k).
This is exactly why Gaïndéa Parental Leave Support exists, and why I set out on a mission to help new mothers return to work smoothly after they’ve had a child.
Because we will NEVER get to gender equality in the workplace until mothers are considered and treated fairly.
We will NEVER change the perception of parenthood if women keep leaving the workforce because they have too much on their shoulders, or because they are perceived as disengaged or less productive.
And, we will NEVER eliminate the bias that women face at work until we eliminate the bias that mothers face.
This is why, even if Gaïndéa’s primary purpose is to support women, a significant part of what we do consists of consulting with organisations and leaders to transform their workplace culture, so that the kind of backward thinking that these young men displayed remains anecdotal.
Sources: (a) European Commission - EU Action for Equal Pay; (b) European Commission - Maternity and Paternity leave in the EU; (c) European Commission - The Gender Pay Gap Situation in the EU; (d) European Commission - Duration of Working Life; (e) 14 weeks legal maternity leave per child, as required by the EU, based on an average 1.5 children per woman (Fertility Statistics); (f) Cairn International Has childlessness peaked in Europe?); (g) European Commission - Ageing Europe - Statistics on Health and Disability; (h) European Commission - Accidents and Injuries Statistics; (i) LinkedIn - Global Talent Trends 2022; (j) LinkedIn - Global Talent Trends 2022; (k) McKinsey - Gone for now or gone for good? How to play the new talent game and win back workers?
コメント